DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the alleged improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation require reversal. The defendant's arguments concerning each remark were not preserved for appellate review because the defendant either failed to object to the prosecutor's statements, made only a general objection, or failed to request curative instructions ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 952; People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824). In any event, some of the challenged remarks were proper because they constituted either fair comment upon the evidence or a fair response to the defense summation ( see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. McHarris, supra). With respect to the remaining challenged remarks, the court's instructions to the jury served to ameliorate any prejudice that the prosecutor's conduct may have engendered ( see People v. Barnes, 80 N.Y.2d 867; People v. Dutcher, 244 A.D.2d 499; People v. Ferrara, 220 A.D.2d 612; People v. Bryant, 163 A.D.2d 406). Moreover, the challenged remarks, both individually and cumulatively, constituted harmless error in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Garrett, 219 A.D.2d 670; People v. Harrell, 270 A.D.2d 358). Thus, reversal is not warranted.
PRUDENTI, P.J., TOWNES, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.